24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!
Nov 25, 2019 at 6:12 PM Post #5,131 of 6,198

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
22,701
Likes
4,538
Location
Hollywood USA
I feel good without even superfluous stuff!
 
Nov 25, 2019 at 6:13 PM Post #5,132 of 6,198

ILikeMusic

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 30, 2004
Posts
1,538
Likes
39
In general, is there some bit rate at when any and separately when most are able to distinguish lossy versions from either lossless CD or lossless 24/96 files? I feel like some older 128 kbps files I have, especially the mp3 ones just sound terrible, but I don't have other versions with which to compare them with.
As bigshot noted the codec is important, but in general tests I've seen on Hydrogenaudio and elsewhere seem to indicate that LAME V2 is transparent to most (exceptions are uncommon) and LAME V0 is essentially transparent to all. Thus LAME 320 would be the same but V0 would be a little more space-efficient.
 
Nov 26, 2019 at 3:31 AM Post #5,133 of 6,198

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
4,058
Likes
2,172
[1] Last post of course we can if you have a setup to show it.
[2] I can tell flac from AIFF To but hey I’m crazy I guess. Even if I take a flac fie and convert or to AIFF it’s obvious but I’m an old deaf guy what do I know.
[3] Stop using math and listen for once

1. Why would I want/have a faulty setup?

2. I can tell a FLAC from an AIFF as well, it's not at all difficult, one has ".flac" at the end of the file name, the other has ".aiff"! And why would being an "old deaf guy" make any difference when reading a file name? An old blind guy, sure! If you're saying you can tell the difference from the sound alone, obviously that's impossible (unless you have a faulty system) because you obviously can't tell the difference between two things that are identical. There's a term for people who can achieve such a feat, it's called "Deluded". So actually, your guess is pretty accurate!

3. This statement raises a couple of OBVIOUS problems:
A. As digital audio IS effectively math, to what are we supposed to "listen for once"? It's like saying; "stop using wheels and drive a car for once" ... "crazy" indeed!
B. As some of us effectively listen for a living (and have done so for decades) and as you are obviously NOT listening yourself but are relying on your eyes, biases and ignorance, then: Condescension + hypocrisy + ignorance is no basis for assertions of fact anywhere, let alone in a sound SCIENCE forum!

By repeating the same ignorant assertions, in a sound science forum of all places, you are demonstrating that either you are trolling, that you want to publicise your ignorance, or both. Either way, your contributions are most unwelcome here!

G
 
Nov 26, 2019 at 6:00 AM Post #5,134 of 6,198

ALRAINBOW

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Posts
4,139
Likes
257
How old are you guys here full disclosure please. you all know what I’m saying yet play word games. If I take a simple redbook file and convert it from flac it’s obvious and I don’t have to look. In fact it was found out by accident for me.
mad for 16 to 24 bit depth this is known it’s just you guys refuse to admit it’s existence. you can’t take a redbook file and convert to high res the info is not there
You can take a hi res and down sample. Oddly you Guys are the math don’t listen groupies so is it a trap you asked me this lol. At this point you guys now admit to my point you don’t listen and don’t have a setup to show it. now this is not enemy to be an offensive comment.
 
Nov 26, 2019 at 6:54 AM Post #5,135 of 6,198

TheSonicTruth

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Posts
1,018
Likes
126
Higher bitrate, as has been demonstrated in this thread,
only means an increased dynamic range - higher than 96 dB.
People can't hear musical content that soft.

Bit-depth, that is.

That many people still confuse the two terms does remain, and education on the difference needs to be given.
 
Nov 26, 2019 at 8:41 AM Post #5,136 of 6,198

board

New Head-Fier
Joined
May 19, 2015
Posts
33
Likes
21
Bit-depth, that is.

That many people still confuse the two terms does remain, and education on the difference needs to be given.
Sorry, that was a typo. I did, of course, know that it was supposed to be bit depth. Actually, when robo24 asked at what bitrate audio became transparent, I thought "why is he all of a sudden talking about bit-rate instead of bit-depth? We're talking about 16 vs. 24 bits, not mp3. So my mistake :).
 
Nov 26, 2019 at 8:46 AM Post #5,137 of 6,198

board

New Head-Fier
Joined
May 19, 2015
Posts
33
Likes
21
How old are you guys here full disclosure please. you all know what I’m saying yet play word games. If I take a simple redbook file and convert it from flac it’s obvious and I don’t have to look. In fact it was found out by accident for me.
mad for 16 to 24 bit depth this is known it’s just you guys refuse to admit it’s existence. you can’t take a redbook file and convert to high res the info is not there
You can take a hi res and down sample. Oddly you Guys are the math don’t listen groupies so is it a trap you asked me this lol. At this point you guys now admit to my point you don’t listen and don’t have a setup to show it. now this is not enemy to be an offensive comment.
I'm 38. I've checked my hearing with a frequency sweep that started at 22 kHz, and my hearing tops out at around 17.5 kHz. And yours?

And now, please provide the log of the blind test you've passed between 24 bit and the same file properly converted to 16 bit. This is the second time I've asked, and you still haven't provided the log - you just keep yakking away. So please provide it instead of keeping on talking.
But I actually also have a, seemingly irrelevant, question for you: Are you a native English speaker?
 
Last edited:
Nov 26, 2019 at 8:49 AM Post #5,138 of 6,198

TheSonicTruth

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Posts
1,018
Likes
126
Sorry, that was a typo. I did, of course, know that it was supposed to be bit depth. Actually, when robo24 asked at what bitrate audio became transparent, I thought "why is he all of a sudden talking about bit-rate instead of bit-depth? We're talking about 16 vs. 24 bits, not mp3. So my mistake :).

Not at all. The subject of digital audio itself contains many confusing terms! lol
 
Nov 26, 2019 at 8:51 AM Post #5,139 of 6,198

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
4,058
Likes
2,172
[1] How old are you guys here full disclosure please. you all know what I’m saying yet play word games.
[2] If I take a simple redbook file and convert it from flac it’s obvious and I don’t have to look. In fact it was found out by accident for me.
[3] mad for 16 to 24 bit depth this is known it’s just you guys refuse to admit it’s existence. you can’t take a redbook file and convert to high res the info is not there. You can take a hi res and down sample. Oddly you Guys are the math don’t listen groupies so is it a trap you asked me this lol.
[4] At this point you guys now admit to my point you don’t listen and don’t have a setup to show it. now this is not enemy to be an offensive comment.

1. This is the Sound Science forum (how many times?), what has age got to do with anything? Either your assertions agree with the science or contradict it, in which case you're ignorant/deluded unless you have some reliable evidence to support your assertions, regardless of your age!! As you've provided no such reliable evidence then obviously you MUST be ignorant/deluded which you confirm by just repeating the same false/unsupported assertions and throwing in a bunch of insults. YOU are the one playing word games and in response to my accusation of hypocrisy, you reply with even more hypocrisy. Way to go!

2. What's really obvious is that what the DAC chip receives from a 16/44 wav (or aiff) or FLAC of that file is absolutely identical and therefore, by definition, you cannot possibly hear a difference because there isn't any! So either your system is quite seriously faulty or you're imagining a difference (where there is none), there is NO other option here!!

3. The "info" you lose going from 24bit to 16bit is ALL inaudible noise. Did you not read or understand ANY of the OP? How old are you?

4. Please explain how my statement "some of us effectively listen for a living (and have done so for decades)" is an admission that we don't listen. Clearly you're now resorting to even more ridiculous falsehoods! And, I freely admit that I do NOT have a setup which is so faulty that it actually creates an audible difference between two identical files!!

Honestly, how foolish do you want to make your self appear, surely there must be limit?

G
 
Nov 26, 2019 at 9:28 AM Post #5,140 of 6,198

ALRAINBOW

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Posts
4,139
Likes
257
I'm 38. I've checked my hearing with a frequency sweep that started at 22 kHz, and my hearing tops out at around 17.5 kHz. And yours?

And now, please provide the log of the blind test you've passed between 24 bit and the same file properly converted to 16 bit. This is the second time I've asked, and you still haven't provided the log - you just keep yakking away. So please provide it instead of keeping on talking.
But I actually also have a, seemingly irrelevant, question for you: Are you a native English speaker?
Lol see it always gets to this level. Yes an America of ITALIAN ancestry. My hearing last tested is on par with you. But this is not about high freq hearing it’s about an observation of noise floor being lower on 24 bit depth. It’s so apparent that I don’t like red book much and for me 24/88.2 is best where bit depth helps noise and 88.2 is still not hi res that seems to soften the sound to me. Now I’m not saying the noise floor is lower but the Perception of its is there. And I’ll bet most all here can hear it too. Out on some beats and and play same track sourced from a good hi res track. Use dB power amp or j river to downsample then listen. I own about 30 TB of music in many formats it’s how I came to notice it.
My whole point is on perception not math. I live in nyc queens maybe one of you can stop by my place to hear what I say.
 
Nov 26, 2019 at 9:32 AM Post #5,142 of 6,198

ALRAINBOW

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Posts
4,139
Likes
257
Bro I have done this many times. Stop by and video me ok then it’s your group to say it’s true but while at my place I’ll bet you can hear it too once you tune into it. enjoy guys and I do mean stop by my place this hobby is just too alone. I used to enjoy head fi meets from here long ago.
 
Nov 26, 2019 at 9:38 AM Post #5,143 of 6,198

bfreedma

The Hornet!
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Posts
2,632
Likes
1,717
Bro I have done this many times. Stop by and video me ok then it’s your group to say it’s true but while at my place I’ll bet you can hear it too once you tune into it. enjoy guys and I do mean stop by my place this hobby is just too alone. I used to enjoy head fi meets from here long ago.

No, you apparently haven't, but it's simple. There are plenty of instructions on how to create samples for a blind test and use the Foobar plugin to record the results. Do that and publish them - no need for anyone to come to your location.

I've seen your other claims over the years about hearing differences in data storage topologies, needing to use Windows Server OS rather than desktop versions, cables, DACs, file formats, etc. Sorry, not buying any of it. Take them back to the rest of Head-fi where claims don't require actual supporting evidence.
 
Nov 26, 2019 at 10:21 AM Post #5,144 of 6,198

ALRAINBOW

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Posts
4,139
Likes
257
No, you apparently haven't, but it's simple. There are plenty of instructions on how to create samples for a blind test and use the Foobar plugin to record the results. Do that and publish them - no need for anyone to come to your location.
And it’s all true too stop by and let’s see what can be heard.

I've seen your other claims over the years about hearing differences in data storage topologies, needing to use Windows Server OS rather than desktop versions, cables, DACs, file formats, etc. Sorry, not buying any of it. Take them back to the rest of Head-fi where claims don't require actual supporting evidence.
 
Nov 26, 2019 at 10:46 AM Post #5,145 of 6,198

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
4,058
Likes
2,172
Lol see it always gets to this level. ....
Bro I have done this many times.

Yep, and clearly you've never stopped to think why "it always gets to this level", you just keep doing "this many times". Congrats, pretty much the definition of a troll!

If you ever do stop and wonder why "it always gets to this level" let me give you a hint, I stated: "Either your assertions agree with the science or contradict it, in which case you're ignorant/deluded unless you have some reliable evidence to support your assertions, regardless of your age!! As you've provided no such reliable evidence then obviously you MUST be ignorant/deluded which you confirm by just repeating the same false/unsupported assertions" - Unfortunately, you respond by yet again just repeating the same false/unsupported assertions and therefore, yet again confirming what you've already confirmed. Congrats again Bro!! But it's really not necessary, we're already convinced that you're ignorant/deluded, so you're just flogging a dead horse at this point!! :deadhorse:

@bfreedma - If he does have a limit of how foolish he wants to make himself look, he apparently hasn't reached it yet! :)

G
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top